Member Info for JRC1000

Rusty/UDF - back to the crux of the situation - we have no idea of the real gross operational profit for this company. There appears to be a widely held view that we are undervalued but even that seems based on the view that cash/profit is being siphoned off somewhere undetected or misreported under different guises. As you say, Rusty, hopefully the Review will reveal all and, again hopefully, in the direction we expect.

Am I right in an assumption that the qualification criteria are almost impossible not to achieve based on the current widely held view that POG is significantly undervalued compared to the median group. I know this is not the exact data but if POG SP is currently at a P/E of (say) 4, and the median group at (say) 12, then any growth in TSR for POG will likely simply reflect a normalisation of P/E for the group as a whole.

Happy New Year.

POG features in The Times Leaders of 2020 today with a rise on the year of 155% with the caption “...the Russian outfit which climbed 155% as a shareholder battle for control shone a light on its potential value”.

Long may the battle continue.

UpDownFlat

You can’t lose money amortising more volume through Fixed Overheads. But if it costs more in Variable Costs to process the ore than the net return then that’s another matter.

Would anyone have any idea what would need to be achieved for parity with the reference group as we currently stand, and would this provide a guide to where our SP would be all things being equal?

Rusty - whilst I can’t disagree with the benefits of processing our own materials, I presume increasing throughput from whatever source helps with the amortisation of fixed running costs.

I have never used Share Awards in any of my businesses to reward employees with the view that they are already recompensed to ensure the Company performs to its optimum. My principal has always been to pay part salary and part (net) profit share.

Given all the comments, guesses, and attempts to explain the results yet again, it would seem that our hope, and the Company’s promise, of improved transparency may have not yet been delivered. The Market seems to agree.

UDF - are you predicting 40p for Xmas but dropping in January?

I notice once again that the SP indicators on this site are frozen at mid afternoon levels - seems a regular occurrence on POG.

Hi Rusty - I understand what you’re saying. In fact the way this third party ore is handled in the accounts up to now seems to be one of the difficult inputs/outputs to get our heads around.

Anyone care to project likely gross revenue based on 600k ounces and £1,800 gold average?

I suppose the real significance is if this issue is having an effect on processing output. On the other hand if it's causing problems with investigatory work then that will inevitably lead to suspicions of reporting cover-ups and, even worse, may lead to our new Auditors having second thoughts.

UDF - as you say - old news and just the Company explaining some of the background to this technical fiduciary issue. I don't see where there's any confusion and seems very well and openly explained. I read it that the Company expects to maintain their recent projection of a performance announcement in the second half of this month, but that even this would be a technical default on original undertakings. Although they also acknowledge that this cannot be guaranteed dependent upon any exceptional early discoveries made by our new auditors.

I wouldn't put much store by the published dates. The Interim Results date is still showing as 9th July (see Financial Diary tab above) and there's still no sign of them. At present just be thankful for any official news which comes our way at any point within the next 3 months or so. Good bull run this last week.

kenj- your post last night......

".......as he works to implement a robust and transparent controls framework across the Group."

"Note the use of the words ROBUST and CONTROL; not words that I would expect to see a new board using when talking about relations with their workforce...."

I would interpret these words as relating to the admin, accounting, and financial reporting procedures - exactly what many of us, and the Market, have been seeking for years. Nothing to do with the workforce apart from those, presumably in management, who may not want certain issues to be investigated.

"The Board is pleased to report that under Mr Meshcheriakov's leadership, the Group's mining operations continue to function normally. However, notwithstanding Mr Meshcheriakov's due appointment as Interim CEO, he has unfortunately encountered a lack of co-operation from some employees and ex-employees in certain of the Russian subsidiaries as he works to implement a robust and transparent controls framework across the Group. The Board is continuing to work with Mr Meshcheriakov to resolve these issues in the best interests of all stakeholders."

Intrigued about the 'ex employee' bit. Presumably ex Board members or senior managers who could be stirring up unrest, but to what end? Do they expect to somehow reverse the recent changes without a voting majority?

Looks like a bit of an orchestrated smear campaign on this board, let alone elsewhere.

I would have been very surprised if PWC had changed their mind from their original position. I would hope that our new joint brokers might have some influence regarding appointment but, as I said in a previous post, I would also think another company would be attracted by the likely lucrative investigatory work and possible restatement of the last 3 years worth of results.

Probably not until Auditors are appointed.